Gun ruling may become a model for the nation

WILMINGTON, Del. -- In a decision that may become a model for the nation, a federal judge here ruled that gun restrictions imposed by the Wilmington Housing Authority on its residents are constitutional.

The housing authority's policy of prohibiting residents from openly carrying firearms in "common areas" of public housing buildings is reasonable and does not unduly restrict residents' Second Amendment right to own and possess a gun, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark wrote in a 42-page opinion.

"It is a good day for the residents of public housing," the housing authority's executive director, Frederick S. Purnell, said Tuesday, adding the policy is designed to protect the safety of tenants, not limit their rights.

The plaintiffs in the National Rifle Association-financed lawsuit, residents Charles Boone and a woman only identified as "Jane Doe," could not be reached for comment. But their lawyer, Francis X. Pileggi, said the federal suit originally was filed to overturn a blanket ban on gun ownership in this city's public housing, "and that was changed after we filed a lawsuit."

2. Aaccording to the SC and

It's most right wing member, there is no Constitutional right to carry any gun any where, only to own a handgun, in your own home. See the majority opinion by Scalia in McDonald vs Chicago. Every Constittuional right we have has some restriction. Perhaps you can come up with any other right that has no restriction?

4. 3rd amendment?

Seriously though, I think you're on the wrong side of this one. A private apartment building - fine, they can set their own rules. A government housing authority should not be able to tell residents what they can't do in their homes, because they have no other option. And it absolutely is meant to limit their rights, despite the official's statement to the contrary, because no one can provide any factual evidence that open carry presents a threat to safety.

12. What constitutes common areas?

If this ruling allowed the authority to ban open carry in lounges and courtyards, it would be different. The article describes common areas as to include halls, so I can only assume it includes any publicly accessible part of the property. In that case, a resident can't move to or from his or her home without violating the ban.

I don't think they would have to change policy regarding any other place. Public housing deals with the homes of people who can't easily choose to live anywhere else. Special consideration has to be given to protect their rights.

9. Another reason to not give an inch

To crazy gun nuts. Next they'll want to remove restrictions on mass murders open carrying and making it legal for anyone to carry chemical weapons for self defense. Then they'll want no restrictions on third graders carrying guns to school. It is a slippery slope to give in on any restrictions to them.

It is unfortunately true that gun control efforts in our nation have a long history of discrimination against the poorer members of our society and minority groups. That's why I oppose "May Issue" as "Shall Issue" is color blind.

(In all fairness my question is probably irrelevant as the reality is that in a state with a "May Issue" concealed carry law would never obtain permission from the authorities to be able to legally carry a concealed handgun for self defense as that privilege would be reserved for the "better members" of society;, the rich, the famous and the politically connected few.)

Oddly enough I can carry a legally concealed weapon in Delaware as I posses a Florida Concealed weapons permit and am a resident of Florida. (No, I am not a vigilante or a fool like Zimmerman. I don't go looking for trouble.)
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html)

I find it strange that as one of the 800,000 residents of Florida I have more gun rights in Delaware than the citizens of that state. (Of course it could be argued that open carry in Delaware is possible but restricted while it Florida it is forbidden in public.)

16. Less freedom for poor people

17. It seems that many have misunderstood the point of

the legal action. Before this court ruling the housing authority banned the residents of these buildings from having guns in their apartments. The lawsuit was about getting that right restored.

"...their lawyer, Francis X. Pileggi, said the federal suit originally was filed to overturn a blanket ban on gun ownership in this city's public housing, "and that was changed after we filed a lawsuit."

21. But the owner of a private apartment complex would be able

to open-carry in common areas, I would assume. And a public housing complex isn't really 'public space' in the way a street or a park would be. So I'm not really convinced this decision is wrong: even though the property owner is a state agency, it seems reasonable to let it behave like a private owner in some respects...